TR-6's. Love'm? Hate'm?

Comments

Pre-'74 TR6s might see some increase in value but they just don't have the panache of an MG-B or a 914 IMO. They're more analogous to 240/260Zs which had much better performance and were highly desired when new yet have languished in value.

I wouldn't hesitate to modify a post '74 car to my liking; surely those are unlikely to appreciate much.

Well we can have a side bet on that---a traditional British sports car with a big six and classic styling? C'mon, It's got EVERYTHING going for it. It's definitely going skywards now that the Healeys are all bought up and restored. Geez, even MGAs are busting $30K and the TR is more car than that.

Now's the time to buy an early TR6. You won't be able to touch 'em in 5-10 years.

You may be right about the rubber-bumper cars, though--they will always languish behind their chromed brothers.

But... I came of car buying age in the '70s..... and, I'd put the TR-6 above either the MGB or the 914 in collectibility...

I have a lot more appreciation for the 914 now, than I did then, but I think I'm in the minority... If I were ranking them, it would be TR-6, 914, MGB...

But, if I had to go buy a car from that era with my own money, it would be a 240/260/280Z (2-seater only).

I've got nothing against mechanical upgrades...or, even better wheels, as long as they are close to stock size... Not too fond of oversized wheels, roll bars and big rally car driving lights on the TR-6.

I'm not a snob, like Shifty, so I don't think owners owe the rest of us anything, when it comes to modifying their own cars.. But, that doesn't mean we can't make fun of them.

Wow, this topic became the "toy poodles wearing doll clothes" parade in just 11 pages. Some of those pics are neither love nor hate. Eww.

regarding that Triumph/Shelby "clone" ...wonder who signed the glove box on that project car? Carol Burnett? Reminds me of a mama's family quote which Andre posted one time: "What's your problem Eunice? You riding the cotton pony?"

It's as though the guy who built that clown car doesn't even get the joke. Parked at any car show it stinks up the whole event. Why even socialize with sports car lovers if you want to do that? Crazy.

I see a lot of this---so now you know why I'm sensitive about it. I've been to hell and back. The hockey-puck stripes are harmless enough, no penalty---- but it's not easy for me to watch people *mutilate* nice TR6s in order to indulge in some kind of car fantasy gone horribly wrong.

I suppose people do this to TR6s for the same reason that people dress up in gorilla costumes and rant about things on YouTube--it attracts attention to themselves---and you know, in 2011 America, even unflattering attention is better than none at all.

I don't know WHY TR6s have been singled out for this torment. I mean, you rarely see TR3 Franken-steined, or Jaguar E-Types, or even Bugeye Sprites.

Yes, we see them with roll bars and air dams, but these are *raced* in SCCA or vintage events and look much as they might have when they first raced.

I have no problem with a TR6 modified expertly and genuinely, for vintage racing.

I don't know WHY TR6s have been singled out for this torment. I mean, you rarely see TR3 Franken-steined, or Jaguar E-Types, or even Bugeye Sprites.

Thast's just it Shifty, TR6s just don't have the classic Brit roadster cachet of those cars you mentioned for several reasons.

-They aren't especially pretty-They weren't good performers for their era-They were inferior in many ways to their competition when new. When I decided to buy a new Fiat 124 Sport Spider/1600 in '71 I also considered a 240Z or a 914/4 but not a TR6 but I might have if they'd kept the nicer Michelotti bodies.

You see these cars as "cut-rate Healey 3000s" but to me they're more "shoulda got a 240Zs"

You see these cars as "cut-rate Healey 3000s" but to me they're more "shoulda got a 240Zs"

Of course, the flaw in that logic is that a 240Z wasn't a convertible. So, if you wanted to drive topless, a 240Z wasn't even your radar back then.

I'll admit that some of the photos you posted are of modified TR6's that only their mothers could love. Having said that, the one with the multi-stripe treatment was a factory/dealer option as someone else mentioned. So, even though that's not my cup of tea either, that one can't be included in the clown car count.

I've joined the TR6/TR250 Car Club of America Club website where modifying these cars is widely accepted. Now, having said that, there are varying degrees of modification and most of the hard core owners don't stray too far from stock in terms of exterior cosmetics. But, modifications to the motor and chassis are pretty normal and these guys live and breathe these cars. So, if it's OK by them, I think that speaks volumes.

While a pure stock TR6 would make great subject material for a History Channel documentary, an all original TR6 is merely a to-be-modified car in waiting to a wide range of owners. As we've said with many domestic marques, it gets down to what you're after. If you're part of the lawn chair set at local car shows, then keeping a car alive with factory replacement parts is your bag. But, if you want to maximize your's and your car's quality of life, then you'll lean toward installing upgraded engine, cooling and chassis components when the original ones wear out or leave you stranded by the side of the road.

Personally, I'm looking for a TR6 that looks stock aside from perhaps an upgraded steering wheel and a "tasteful" set of wheels (yes, they do exist), but has some logical/rational upgrades under the hood and sheetmetal. Something like this . . . An ideal TR6 for me

That one's not bad, nice colors inside and out, but I'm sure Mr.S would object to the gold painted wheel centers. That could be fixed with a can of spray paint. The luggage rack was a common acccessory back in the day.

I don't care for the four tail pipes. Those were trademarks of Ferraris from the beginning but now lately everyone's been copying them. IMO they're quite inappropriate for anything but a Ferrari.

I must respectfully differ regarding the TR6s performance. It is every inch an Austin Healey 3000 in that regard. It's really a fun car to drive and has plenty of torque for spirited driving on twisty roads.

As for modifications, I have no problem with *improving* the internals that cannot be seen externally, but garish wheels, body cladding, or different engines are not only a-historical, they are unnecessary.

so many old car guys think they are smarter than factory engineers, and they make modifications to improve one thing and end up, usually, degrading another thing they hadn't counted upon at all.

e.g., they put in a lightened flywheel and then struggle with shifting in city driving; they replace the Strombergs or SUs with Webers, and end up fussing more with those than they did with the originals; they put on a "sport exhaust" and drone themselves to death at 4000 rpms;

Sure, you want to strengthen the differential mounts, maybe some nice Bilsteins, you want to put on a modern ignition perhaps, synthetic oil perhaps, maybe even an overdrive transmission. These things make sense to me.

Being part of a club doesn't necessarily validate what is done to cars. The competition among them often leads to doing really stupid things as well as very clever mods.

You raise an excellent point. No doubt that some guys get themselves into trouble when they start swapping out bits and pieces without a master plan. However, the point should be made there are a lot of components utilizing superior designs/materials that weren't available in, say, 1972. As an example, anyone doing a total body off restoration on a TR6 should consider a modern frame replacement as there are at least two companies I'm aware of that make better frames than the original. Keep in mind too that the original engineers were constrained to some degree by costs in order to keep the overall car at, or below, a specific price point. Therefore, it's entirely possible (and probably a fact) that better designs/materials were likely ditched as a concession to cost. In today's TR6 world (and other marques too), penny pitching accountants don't have the final approval when it comes to selecting the quality and design of components. In other words, in an effort to build a better mousetrap, the restorer is not under the same constraints as the original engineers.